The Instigator
3105193
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Redsoxphan
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Treaty of Versailles

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Redsoxphan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 88563
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

3105193

Con

The Treaty of Versailles isn't fair. Germany shouldn't take full blame for the war.
Redsoxphan

Pro

Thesis: The Treaty of Versailles was fair and reasonable
To start the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 , imposed by the Supreme Court was in fair to Germany. The Germans were involved in the war, and lost fair and square. Now , Woodrow Wilson practiced moral diplomacy , and to him it was a fair treaty. Now to look back at other situations in history. Throughout history it has been common practice for the victor to impose sanctions on the losers. Have you ever heard the saying "To the victor go the spoils". Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Napoleon, the Vatican, Ferdinand of Spain, and many others have long practiced this belief. The treaty did not erase the German nation and split it up among the victors. It did not diminish its national identity, nor did it enslave the people of Germany.
Sources:
America Past and Present APUSH Book
Debate Round No. 1
3105193

Con

It was all of our faults if we hadn't had those Alliances World War 1 would have just been a small border war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
Redsoxphan

Pro

I figured you would say that. You avoided addressing all except one of my claims, so I assume that you have no counterargument against them. It was fair because Germany started the war with the Schlieffen Plan. The war caused millions of people to die so because of that they should not have had a say in what the Treaty of Versailles said. The loss of life on both sides was an unpayable debt and the terms of the treaty were fair. Not only was there a great loss of life, but the damage to the European infrastructure was also impacted. The destruction in Europe was extensive and Germany was to was very lenient and he was trying to punish Germany, but not as harshly as the others. Wilson was trying to bring peace in a friendly way. Wilson wasn't seeking revenge.The provision that was fair was the decrease to Germany’s army. If Germany’s army was decreased then they were most likely not going to start any more wars because they simply would not have enough man power to help them succeed. All of the provision had there place and had a purpose to serve.Germany was given harsh requirements but sometimes you need to set those harsh requirements to prove a point. The Treaty of VersaillesGeorges Clemenceau of France had one very simple belief – Germany should be brought to its knees so that she could never start a war again, and this belief was not initiated in the Treaty of Versailles , so Germany should have been grateful for that , considering the French lost 1.4 million soldiers in the war.
Sources
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
APUSH America Past and Present Pearson
Debate Round No. 2
3105193

Con

Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia and because of the alliances. the Russia attacked Austria-Hungary for attacking Serbia, the Ottoman Empire attacked Russia for attacking Austria-Hungary, France attacked the Ottoman Empire for attacking Russia, Bulgaria attacked France for attacking the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain attacked Bulgaria for attacking France, Germany attacked Great Britain for attacking Bulgaria, and finally the United States of America attacked Germany for attacking Great Britain. All of that could have just been a small border war between Serbia,but because of the alliances it brought all of Europe and the United States into War.
Redsoxphan

Pro

You are avoiding every single one of my points, which is in my opinion an automatic forfeit! A debate is supposed to be consistent of rebuttals , and counterclaims, and right now I just see you spewing your own argument , and completely ignoring mine. Also , I already saw your argument coming , because you previously wrote an opinion piece on this , so I knew your entire argument on the subject beforehand.
Rebuttals:
You provide no evidence for your claims.
Rebuttal#1
and finally the United States of America attacked Germany for attacking Great Britain. All of that could have just been a small border war between Serbia,but because of the alliances it brought all of Europe and the United States into War.
While it is true that alliances between Austria - Hungary , Germany, and other countries did extensively bring WW1 to a large scale war. The US did not attack the Germans, the Germans attacked American merchant ships causing economic damage to the United States, so that statement is false.
Rebuttal #2
The Treaty of Versailles isn't fair. Germany shouldn't take full blame for the war.
Although the murder of Arch Duke Ferdinand was the spark of the war,Germany officially started the war with the Schlieffen Plan. It also delivered the Zimmerman telegram. They caused a lot of damage to other countries, so a harsh punishment is fair. You do the crime you do the time.




Debate Round No. 3
3105193

Con

3105193 forfeited this round.
Redsoxphan

Pro


Extend. Vote Pro(for).





Debate Round No. 4
3105193

Con

3105193 forfeited this round.
Redsoxphan

Pro

Extend. The Treaty Versailles was fair. Vote for Pro (for).
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Redsoxphan 10 months ago
Redsoxphan
Good point. Okay , I am going to post this to the voters forum
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
People of that age are still capable of posting sufficient RFDs, and if they aren't, they can learn. I happen to know plenty of members who are in their early teens and are perfectly capable voters. The standards aren't so lofty that no one could possibly meet them, and I certainly wouldn't view it as elitist to expect a reasonable standard for voting on a site dedicated to debating, any more than I'd view understanding and following the rules of a given sport before participating in it as elitist.

But that's beside the point. The votes that you apparently think should have remained on the site literally included no information on the reasons why the voter decided as they did. Regardless of the age, regardless of the capacity to formulate an RFD, do you honestly feel that these votes were the slightest bit reasonable?
Posted by Redsoxphan 10 months ago
Redsoxphan
Let me pose a question to you. The age demographics of this site mostly consist of pre-pubescent teens, and teens that have reached puberty so why do you expect an RFD from them? Most of the time they don't post an RFD because they don't know how to properly word an RFD. So I feel that debate.org is catering to the minority of older users, and is becoming an elitist organization. Why do you do this?
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
I actually posted the wrong decision on this one, since that wasn't the RFD and this wasn't a full forfeit debate. Here's the actual one:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Everything// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: .

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a period.
************************************************************************

And, just so you know, Airmax did look this over and removed the vote himself, so I don't think you're going to get anywhere by contacting him.
Posted by Redsoxphan 10 months ago
Redsoxphan
I will report you to Airmax if you do not give me my points back.
Posted by Redsoxphan 10 months ago
Redsoxphan
So can I have my points back? I am very mad you did not give me five points back as promised. By the way I have no more debates, so you cannot moderate any more of my debates.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Everything// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: con gave up

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on full forfeit debates do not get moderated unless they give more points to the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Everything// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: .

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a period.
************************************************************************
Posted by Redsoxphan 11 months ago
Redsoxphan
Also , before a debate , do not post an opinion argument on your opinion of the subject. I now know your entire argument on the Treaty of Versailles.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Behold 7 months ago
Behold
3105193RedsoxphanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: As Pro said, Con has basically forfeited all points by non-response.